"In the past, Thompson has opposed a federal amendment to ban gay marriage on federalist grounds. Like Arizona Sen. John McCain and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, he has said that he does not believe the federal government should be involved in an issue that should be left to the states. But on Friday, he said he would support a different type of amendment to the Constitution. "I would support a constitutional amendment which says some off-the-wall court decision in one state that recognizes the marriage in one state, like Massachusetts, just to pick a state, cannot go to another state and have it recognized in that state. You are not bound by what another state does." He was not done. "The second part of my amendment would also state that judges could not impose this [gay marriage], on the federal or state level, unless a state legislature signed off on it." This second part of his amendment is novel, if a bit ponderous. He has said before that he is against the federal government inserting itself into state matters like marriage. But he supports the federal government inserting itself into state courthouses, when they take up the issue of marriage. He did not immediately explain this conflict."

DocGonzo at DailyKos offered his analysis: "My analysis: these Republican spokesmodels don't care about gay marriage, gay people, Iowans, the Constitution, or anything else. They care about grabbing power, no matter what they say or do to get and keep it. Thompson is the worst kind of bigot: the opportunist bigot who doesn't even care who he hates or persecutes. Those kind are the hardest to catch and break, because they can melt into any background when bigotry is inconvenient."

And AmericaBlog notes a resemblance between Thompson and a villain from Buffy, the Vampire Slayer.

Comments

"he supports the federal government inserting itself into state courthouses, when they take up the issue of marriage. He did not immediately explain this conflict."

This isn't a conflict. It will worth both ways: if a state wants gay marriage it can have gay marriage without interference. If a state does not want gay marriage, it won't have to have gay marriage because another state has it.

Since an amendment to the US Constitution is ratified by 3/4 of the state's legislatures you can't say he's trying to insert the feds into the state courts. He's ensuring it's up to the state's citizens and representatives.

What has happened in CA is the people voted for one man + one woman marriage in 1998. Like other things its done against the voter's will, the bizarre activist legislature has been passing gay marriage which Arnold vetoes while he has signed also partnership laws, annoying conservatives in the process.

As I understand it, in CA, only a vote of the people or the court ruling can overturn something they've enacted by referendum. The legislature cannot act against it without getting voter approval so Arnold has to veto.

In the lawsuit against Prop 22, both Arnold and the AG, Jerry Brown, have said the term "marriage" could be done away with since there's already equivalent partnership laws.

What was said earlier is true. None of the candidates care about gay marriage or gays period. They're all doing what they can to get votes and you'll find some of that will change based on their audience at a given moment. If you think the Democrats will give you want you want, you are forgetting DADT which Clinton and the Democrat Congress gave in 1993 and DOMA from the Republican Congress which Clinton signed into law. Both sides want heterosexual-only marriage because it will get them votes.

What's worse? The people who tell you where they really stand on this and don't bullshit you (Republicans) or those who make excuses, lie to you or stab you in the back on these issues (Democrats)? The more you support Democrats blindly hoping for changes, the more they'll continue to take your votes, your money and give you nothing in return. Demand they walk the talk or find someone who will.

Posted by: queendru | Sep 10, 2007 8:05:07 PM

Will someone, many someones, please flood Tim Russert and NBC with e-mails demanding to know why he keeps inviting David Brody,
Sr. National Correspondent AT PAT ROBERTSON'S CHRISTIAN BROADCASTING NETWORK on his "Meet the Press" alongside secular media representatives? It's bad enough that MSNBC sibling "Newsweek" editor Jon Meacham has elevated religion to a permanent undeserved deluxe suite, and another to treat a shill for religion, particularly a narrowly focused one, as an objective equal to the reporters Russert has seated him next to such as Judy Woodruff, Senior Correspondent, PBS’s The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, Chuck Todd, Political Director, NBC News, John Harwood of the Wall Street Journal, historian Doris Kearns Goodwin, the Post's Carl Bernstein, and the Chicago Tribune's David Mendell for a "political roundtable." Of course, no reporter is truly objective anymore than the rest of us. But Russert's/NBC's throwing all pretense out the window is a bit much.

Why not have the Pope's press rep on as a regular? And a rabbi? And an Islamic fundamentalist? After all, I'm not certain any of their bosses have predicted the exact hour and day when Jesus will "return" or prayed for the death of too gay-friendly Supreme Court Justices or another nation's leader or blamed 9/11 on, among others, gays and lesbians, as Brody's has.

Warning to Russert, Kearns, Bernstein, et al.: if he brings his own Kool Aid just say, No.

Posted by: Leland Frances | Sep 10, 2007 8:09:10 PM

Let's not forget Tommy Thompson declared from the stage of the FIRST Rethuglican debate that gay people should have NO RECOURSE if they are FIRED FROM WORK simply for being gay.

He said it twice and NO OTHER RETHUG CANDIDATE stood up to say that was wrong. It still stands, even if no one will ask each of the other Rethug pygmies. That's why the ONLY choice for gay people is to vote for Democratic candidates.

Especially if you don't want the occupation in Iraq to go on for 20 more years.

Posted by: bamjaya | Sep 10, 2007 8:19:21 PM

Well Bill Perdue.....in this post your a **socialist, communist, laborite.....in the post about Israelie skinheads you were a neo-nazi, anti-semite.....I don't often agreee with Leland, but this time I do....

In a perfect world you can find a candidate that you can agree with 95 or more % of the time, but this is hardly a perfect world. The best we can do RB is find a candidate that we agree with on the MAJOR issues and then use our voices to get him or her to come around to our way of thinking on the others.
I know a lot of folks here like Edwards, but he's as bad as Fred T.....he plays with words in a way to make as many people as possible think he's a stand up guy and it just isn't so.....His wife touts how she is ahead of John on gay issues, but he will come around, if only we support him. I have to think, then why dosen't John just come out and unequivically support us and our issues now, since he plans to do it AFTER the election.

So, study them all, really look into what they are saying, look at past actions and then make up your minds. Obscure parties aren't going to get you your rights, it's going to have to be the Democrats or the Republicans folks.

Posted by: Joshua | Sep 10, 2007 8:42:34 PM

I have to say something here. I have said in the past, and so have others, that it's a damn shame people that forthrightly support us and our issues are the ones with no chance of winning.

Well, there are primaries in the following states.....California, New York, Illinois, Florida, Michigan, Maryland, Connetnicut(sp), and Rhode Island. ALL of these states have very, very large gay populations, all we have to do is back someone like Dennis Kucinich, who is actually an office holder that has ALWAYS supported gays and gay rights. In fact, he could carry his home state with gay help. If we did nothing else but make him the runner up in 4 or 5 of those states, he would have to be considered as a VP choice.
If we can't get the number 1 job holder to speak up for us, the number 2 sure would and he could be President one day.

Think about it....we HAVE power folks, and loads of money....it dosen't have to be Dennis, it could be Gavel, but it has to be one of the ones who unequivically supports us or else the powers that be won't get why one of these guys is getting votes.

Posted by: Joshua | Sep 10, 2007 8:52:41 PM

The comparison to the Buffy "Hush" villains is priceless! It inspired me to make this...

So let me see if I've got this right. First we have Joshua, a grisly example of the dangers of being historically clueless and a proud anti Palestinian bigot. To cover his sinister bigotry Joshua claims that those who condemn the zionist policies that pushed Palestinians out of their land and into poverty are anti-Semites and Nazis.

Second we have Leland Frances, a shill for a right centrist pro-war party of bigots (that could be one of two parties, you guess which) whose program is worth its weight in bullshit. Leland is captivated by Hillary Clinton but he too has a lot of trouble defending his political ‘stance’ (he’s too much of a Democrat to actually have principles) so he also resorts to shrill name calling.

And best of all they agree that I'm a bad boy.
I am so validated.

Posted by: Bill Perdue | Sep 10, 2007 10:49:06 PM

He looks rough. Is he gonna make it through a campaign. On Leno he looked like he was medicated. That was the most pathetic presidential annoucement.

Posted by: zeke | Sep 10, 2007 10:52:08 PM

i like you bill, but i'm the "politics is half a loaf," guy. you know, the pragmatist. the stakes are way too high to fiddle-fart around with sanctimonious, idealistic b.s.

although some think there is not a whit of difference between the repugs and the dems, there really is. the dems would not have invaded iraq. they would not have nominated antonin scalia, clarence thomas (who replaced the great thurgood marshall, and whose appointment must have been a slap in the face to our black brethren), john roberts and samuel alito to the bench.

all of these right-wing ideologue justices are relatively young: they will be on the bench for decades. i keep hoping that all of the liberal judges and the one "swing" judge maintain a pulse until we off-load the delusional moron-in-chief known as dubya (or the shrub). all of our futures hang in the balance.

we may quibble over who is more liberal, who is cuter, who is more electable, and so on. i really don't care. neither should any of you. once the democratic primaries are over and a candidate has been selected, we have to make sure that candidate, male or female, wins in the general election.

gay rights, civil rights, labor rights, environmental protection, bilateral and multilateral foreign policy, and on and on, cannot stand another four years of relentless repug assault.

Posted by: nic | Sep 10, 2007 11:26:49 PM

Doesn't Clinton's DOMA accomplish the same thing as the first part of Fred proposed amendment?...[No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) need recognize a marriage between persons of the same sex, even if the marriage was concluded or recognized in another state.]

Posted by: Huh? | Sep 10, 2007 11:34:11 PM

Maybe everyone will get lucky and Fred will kill over soon on the campaign trail since his health is not that great (praise Jesus).

Posted by: Jordan | Sep 10, 2007 11:49:36 PM

if this 'folksy' phony actually wins the nomination, then i just fucking give up.

Posted by: el polacko | Sep 11, 2007 12:41:07 AM

Thompson makes some sense on the topic of "gay marriage." Then he clouds the issue.

There should not be a constitutional amendment, but at the same time, there should not be any provisions for a man to marry a man. That is an affront to married couples who made their vows before God. Furthermore, the birth of a new lide is intrinsic to the sexual union between a man and a woman. That ain't so with two men (or women).
Let's finally agree that civil unions will provide same sex couples most of the benefits they seek.

That is a broad swipe of dismissal and totally unfair.
Many Republicans (spokesmodels, or otherwise) believe that same sex couples should be afforded most of the benefits that married couples are provided. They want to (RIGHTfully) do it by supporting a CIVIL UNION law.
Gays CONTINUE to dismiss this and rant for "gay marriage" only.
THAT is where they meet their demise.

This nation was borne of strong values, morals and the belief in a higher, guiding power. That axiom should continue and it is much more appropriate for all Americans.

MoveOn.rightnow

Posted by: Stephen | Sep 11, 2007 4:48:05 AM

And to elaborate, "gay marriage" is an affront to straight couples; I know this because I myself am thrice divorced. I want to get married yet again, but since those "off-the-wall" judges in Iowa have let homosexuals marry, the pastor at my church has told us church members that it will be harder for him to marry us since the institution of marriage has been degraded. He told us that we have to vote GOP in order to stop these activist judges from completely destroying our sacred institution that only Christians and some Jews are allowed to take part in, otherwise he would be forced to stop performing marriages all together. So, in spite of all of the attacks I've been receiving here, I have a vested interest in telling all of you homosexuals that you are all wrong and are making my life impossible with your gay marriage.

Posted by: Stephen | Sep 11, 2007 9:53:28 AM

You know, the last time I checked, the President takes an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the US. Not just the parts they want to preserve, protect and defend, but ALL of it. That includes the full faith and credit part.

Perhaps, Mr. Thompson sir, you should read AND understand that document before you decide to run for the office. It is plainly obvious the current President never did.

Posted by: JonathanF | Sep 11, 2007 5:06:03 PM

Don't worry. Fred Thompson is a boob. He's Foghorn Leghorn in a suit. Not only is he wrong about the facts - (it's already been pointed out that California has passed gay marriage twice) - but this guy cannot win the nomination. There are too many Republicans that think disrespect his personal life, just as they do Giuliani's. Which is ironic, since Thompson apparently disrespects the personal lives of gay people, or says so to get votes.